In yet another rant to the Tri-Valley Herald (14-Dec-2005), Wendy Weathers demonstrates a classic case of both selective memory and projection. The letter to the right is a copy of the letter printed on the editorial pages of the Herald. The Herald is a multi-edition paper published by ANG Newspapers with local editions published for several East Bay communities. Unfortunately, the Herald's web site does not provide linkable references to the local letters. As a result, I can't link to the original letter.

Why do I say selective memory and projection? Because the airport manager never stated what she is quoting in her letter. The quote Wendy uses to substantiate her position is a complete fabrication. Wendy (and her cohorts at LACG) only thinks she heard this because she's so desperate for it to be true.

Here are the facts.

The most recent hangars at the Livermore airport were constructed in a phased development between 1985-1987. During that period, approximately 200 hangars were built and occupied on the south side of the airfield. During that period, the number of based aircraft jumped by approximately 200 aircraft (big surprise).

Wendy (and LACG) claim that more hangars equals more noise. It is a ridiculous assertion that is not supported by the facts. Operations logs from the Livermore tower and based aircraft data tell a completely different story. The fundamental conclusion is that there is absolutely no correlation between the number of based aircraft and the operation count (and noise) at the Livermore airport! The graph to the right plots the traffic counts in context with the number of based aircraft. If there was a direct correlation, you would expect to see a traffic jump between 1985 and 1987 (when the new hangars were occupied). No such correspondance exists.

In fact, between 1987-2005, the average number of based aircraft at the Livermore airport hovered around 585. During that period, traffic counts steadily grew from 205,000 to 280,000 between 1987-1993 and then precipitously dropped off. While the number of based aircraft increased by 10% between 1999-2005, the number of operations dropped by over 30%. It is far more obvious that the operation count is dominated by the state of the economy and fuel prices, not where the aircraft are parked.

There is also no evidence of a correlation between the number of noise complaints at the Livermore airport and the number of based aircraft. In fact, the noise logs were not even started until 1987. Searchable records didn't exist until the mid-90's.

It is worth pointing out that the majority of aircraft owners on the current hangar waiting list already base their aircraft at Livermore. Most of those aircraft are currently parked on the ramp. If the City built new hangars, all that would happen is that those aircraft would simply shift their location at the airport.

Wendy's claim that new hangar construction will result in a surge of more based aircraft (and more noise) is also ridiculous. Such a conclusion is predicated on the notion that the airport is at 100% capacity. In fact, the current ramp is only half full. If there was such a pressing demand to base new aircraft at Livermore, can Wendy please explain the high vacancy rate of the ramp?

Last week, The Independent published a photo of a California Department of Forestry (CDF) helicopter fighting a wildfire just south of town (shown to the right).

I submitted a letter which was published this week. The text of the letter is provided below.

To:Editor, The Independent

From: Brett M. Wayne

Subject: Let Them Burn?

After reading the caption to your front page photo of a CDF firefighting helicopter dumping water on the wildfire that occurred near Koopman Road and I-680 on Tuesday, I wanted to point out a few facts.

Critics of the Livermore airport have recently engaged in a campaign to shut down jet fuel sales at the airport. Critics wrongly believe that if the city simply stopped selling jet fuel, jet aircraft would stop flying out of Livermore. Such a conclusion is as ridiculous as saying all our traffic woes would be solved if Pleasanton simply passed an ordinance forbidding gasoline sales.

While shutting down jet fuel sales would only have a negligible impact on jet operations and deprive the airport of a valuable revenue stream, it would also deprive the community of a valuable emergency resource as well. Do you realize that when the helicopter shown in your photo ran low of fuel, the Livermore airport was the closest source of jet fuel for the CDF?

In fact, during June and July, CDF aircraft that were actively engaged in regional fire suppression missions have used the Livermore airport to refuel on six separate occasions, taking on several thousand pounds of jet fuel. Valuable time would have been wasted and payload would have been compromised if those aircraft were forced to land at San Jose, San Francisco, or Oakland to purchase their fuel.

This is just another case where critics of the Livermore airport haven't fully appreciated the unintended consequences of their demands. How many homes need to be burned as an acceptable compromise for eliminating fuel sales?

-Brett Wayne-
Livermore, CA

In an embarassing piece of poorly researched and biased journalism, the Tri-Valley Herald ran an article noting the recent uptick in noise complaints. Essentially, one of the airport's most vocal critics has been abusing the noise complaint line that was recently installed at the Livermore airport.

In a cynical bid to bolster her case by distorting the call statistics, Ms. Weathers has been wasting city resources with a never ending stream of vitriolic complaints. Unfortunately, each time a complaint is logged, City staff are required to investigate. Over the past three years, Ms. Weathers has logged over 300 complaints. Many thousands of dollars have been wasted by City staff following up on her ridiculous claims.

Worse, after essentially "stuffing the ballot box" with complaints, Ms. Weathers forwarded the bogus data to the Tri-Valley Herald. Unfortunately, the Herald reporter didn't even bother to check on the facts.

The original article is no longer available on the Herald's web site.

Below is the letter I sent to the Herald to point out some of the more relevant facts...

To:Editor, The Tri-Valley Herald

From: Brett M. Wayne

Subject: New Spike in Noise Complaints?

Your article noting the recent increase in noise complaints at the Livermore airport reveals much about your decision to take sides on an issue rather than objectively reporting the news. A simple review of the noise complaint logs leads to a fundamentally different conclusion - that a fringe group of airport critics who are crusading to have the airport closed are also responsible for a significant majority of those complaints.

It is hardly surprising that the airport has noted a recent increase in complaints. After all, the city only recently added a dedicated complaint line and announced its availability to the public. Before then, many in the public were unaware of even how to register a complaint.

While your reporter noted that "Wendy Weathers has called the new phone line several times," he failed to acknowledge some very important details. This year, Ms. Weathers has already registered over 30 complaints at the Livermore airport. Of the 23 complaints that were logged against aircraft operating during the voluntary evening quiet hours, over half can be attributed to Ms. Weathers. Furthermore, a number of those complaints were unsubstantiated by the video surveillance system currently installed at the airport. Several of those complaints were later determined to be aircraft enroute to Oakland and had absolutely nothing to do with the Livermore airport.

Last year, five residents compiled over half of the total complaints. This year, only two residents account for nearly half of the total complaints. In 2003, two-thirds of the total complaints were attributed to Ms. Weathers. In fact, since 2002, Ms. Weathers has harassed the airport staff by registering over 300 complaints - a substantial percentage of the total and hardly the disingenuous "several times" that were acknowledged to your reporter. That I was able to compile these facts after only a brief scan of the publicly available documents reveals a great deal about your reporter.

There is little doubt there are residents that are impacted by the airport. What is unclear is the true nature of that impact. Unfortunately, given the current level of hostility, an honest debate about the issue seems impossible. Nevertheless, an objective review of the noise log paints a far different picture of the complaints as well as the veracity of some of those that are complaining.

-Brett Wayne-
Livermore, CA

The following letter was submitted and published by both the Tri-Valley Herald and The Independent as a reponse to the following articles in the Herald. The linked articles all appear to be revisions and variations of the same article.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/searchresults/ci_2620347
http://www.insidebayarea.com/searchresults/ci_2621664
http://www.insidebayarea.com/searchresults/ci_2621675

Of particular interest is this quote from Mayor Hosterman...

Pleasanton Mayor Jennifer Hosterman said the concept "is terrific," but
said the number of units the city might consider approving will depend
on how the remainder of the 128-acre property will be used.

"It's an 'age in place' concept ... where you'd have an opportunity to
make your final investment in a place where you know you're going to live
out the rest of your life," Hosterman said. "I think that's appealing
to a lot of people and is the kind of project we need in the Tri-Valley.
That said, it's really going to depend on what other land uses go out there."

To:Editor, The Tri-Valley Herald

To:Editor, The Independent

From: Brett M. Wayne

Subject: Senior Development for Staples Ranch?

In what must be one of the most stunningly dumb moves yet, Pleasanton Mayor Jennifer Hosterman is embracing the development of 800 units of senior housing on the old Staples Ranch property.

Fresh off from what became one of the most contentious public debates in years over the Livermore airport, Mayor Hosterman thinks developing high density housing directly off the end of the primary departure runway would be terrific. Huh? Current residents in homes farther away from the airport are already complaining about the noise. What on earth does the mayor think will result when a couple thousand seniors move into homes that are even closer to the airport?

If Pleasanton insists on developing the property, any number of more appropriate uses come to mind before using it for senior housing. What's next? An elementary school directly below the flight path? Oh wait. I forgot. They have already done that.

At the very least, before the City of Livermore forces pilots and aircraft owners to waste hundreds of thousands of their own dollars supporting an unnecessary noise monitoring system, the City of Livermore needs to get a commitment from Pleasanton to stop their ridiculous encroachment on the airport.

Brett Wayne
Livermore, CA

To:Editor, The Tri-Valley Herald

To:Editor, The Independent

From: Brett M. Wayne

Subject: Livermore Airport Master Plan Update

It is unfortunate that critics of the Livermore airport have hijacked a long-overdue update to the airport master plan in an attempt to turn the process into a general referendum on the airport. Ultimately, you must believe that adopting the master plan update will encourage more traffic or you must believe the update presents reasonable and necessary accommodations required to cope with future traffic.

Fortunately, we have time. While there is an urgent need for more hangar space, few of the master plan update recommendations need to be hastily implemented. Since the traffic operation count has yet to recover from its 1993 peak, the current facility can readily accommodate any near term growth. We must, however, plan for the future.

Some critics have argued that the airport provides little benefit and have chosen to characterize it as catering to the idle-rich. They are wrong. The airport is a key transportation resource that contributes over $57 million to the local economy. The vast majority of jet operations are conducted by a roll call of valley businesses. Residents also enjoy a windfall from aircraft property taxes and possessory-interest taxes paid by tenants of city-owned hangars. These significant benefits are achieved mostly through federal AIP funding and local enterprise-fund loans. The city does not subsidize the airport.

Critics cite safety concerns while offering no evidence to substantiate their claims. Lengthening the shorter runway, adding lights, encouraging FBO development, even shifting aircraft from the ramp into more secure hangars will contribute to improved safety at the airport.

Critics utterly exaggerate the pollution consequence of 1,000 daily aircraft operations while failing to acknowledge that over 200,000 vehicles commute daily through the valley. Aircraft flying out of Livermore use less fuel than is sold by a typical automotive service station.

Critics cite loss of property values, yet conveniently leave out that they were fully aware of the proximity of the airport when they purchased their homes. Every study presented to substantiate their concerns address airports with significant scheduled passenger service. Livermore has already, and rightly dismissed approval of such service.

Critics cite the impacts of jet noise yet leave out the fact that the turbine operations forecast in the master plan update are from a class of aircraft that is profoundly quieter than many existing jets and even some general aviation aircraft.

Lastly, I find it revealing that when a compromise was offered to recommend a more focused environmental review, a small cabal incessantly demanded a full EIR. It is clear to me their motives are more about bludgeoning the city with demands for an unnecessary, expensive, and bureaucratic process than it is about pursuing good public policy.

Brett M. Wayne
Livermore, CA